RE: [Asrg] C/R - What people say

Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com> Thu, 15 May 2003 02:42 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA13333 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 14 May 2003 22:42:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4F29Uu07548 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 14 May 2003 22:09:30 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4F29UB07545 for <asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 14 May 2003 22:09:30 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA13329; Wed, 14 May 2003 22:42:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19G8j0-0003Fm-00; Wed, 14 May 2003 22:44:06 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19G8j0-0003Fj-00; Wed, 14 May 2003 22:44:06 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4F286B07494; Wed, 14 May 2003 22:08:06 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4F27GB06752 for <asrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 14 May 2003 22:07:16 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA13300 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 May 2003 22:39:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19G8gr-0003Ez-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 14 May 2003 22:41:53 -0400
Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19G8gq-0003Ev-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 14 May 2003 22:41:52 -0400
Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h4F2gu3k017638 for asrg@ietf.org env-from <vjs>; Wed, 14 May 2003 20:42:56 -0600 (MDT)
From: Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com>
Message-Id: <200305150242.h4F2gu3k017638@calcite.rhyolite.com>
To: asrg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Asrg] C/R - What people say
References: <MBEKIIAKLDHKMLNFJODBIEPBFCAA.eric@purespeed.com>
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 20:42:56 -0600

"Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>

> > Your policy is to interpret the presence of the Sender header as being
> > "interesting".
> > However, its presence or absence has nothing to do with anything else
> > about the message.
> > Nothing.
> > Not one thing.

I think that's an overstatement or beside the point.  While according
to standards theory, Sender: headers may have nothing to do with
whether the message is bulk, practice may differ.  I'd want to look
at a few 1,000,000 private messages in a variety of locations and
check the behavior of a bunch of MTAs and MUAs before guessing whether
in practice "Sender" headers indicate "bulk."


> From: "Eric Dean" <eric@purespeed.com>

> ok..very nice..so what do you propose for list detection?

It's not Dave Crocker's fault that Sender headers do not necessarily
indcate "bulk," and neither is it his responsibility to find a solution
to your problem if they don't.  You could but don't absolutely need to
thank him for pointing out a hole.  You certainly should not snarl.
In your position, I'd hope to offer evidence showing that in practice
Sender: headers do work or some (real, not invented) words in an RFC
showing that Dave Crocker is mistaken.  Failing that, I'd probably
fall back on "well, C/R isn't perfect, but it's good enough to help"
(if that were my opinion, which it isn't).


Contrary to other contributors to this mailing list, pointing out that
an anti-spam mechanism cannot possibly work according to its specifications
not only is not a bad thing, but entirely constructive.  In the real
world outside sports bars, chatrooms, and netnews, the purpose of
proposing a mechanism is not some sort of chest thumping proof of
manhood.  Playing the Cliff The Mailman characer from the old "Cheers"
TV-sitcom gains no points here.  The only appropriate response to a
claim that one's proposed mechanism has a hole is changing the proposal
to close the hole or offering proof that the hole does not exist or
does not matter in practice.  And that proof has nothing to do with
indignant remarks about one's supposed enormous experience and insight,
physics or math education, or friends who were once in high places.


Vernon Schryver    vjs@rhyolite.com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg